Internet Killed the Intellectual Star

Is technology making us dumber? I ask this question in all seriousness. Are our cell phones making us less aware of our surroundings, are video games slowly diffusing the electrical connections in our brains, or how about this: are blogs lowering the discourse for public intellectuals? Works like, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline by Posner, and The Last Intellectuals: American Culture in the Age of Academe by Jacoby have attempted to profile American public intellectuals and assess their status as endangered species (maybe we should get WWF involved). When thinking about the blogosphere and the public intellectual’s role within it, the question must be asked, is the public intellectual’s impact reflected on the content of their work or on the medium through which it is disseminated?

The internet is a wonderful place. If I could live in it I would. I imagine it would be much like Mr. Wonka’s factory, except instead of gumdrops and licorice I could listen to all of the free music that I wanted, or use my imagination to have all sorts of strange questions answered. Where the delight would stop and confusion begin, is where to get my information from. Blogging’s user friendly format allows for anyone to electronically “publish” themselves for public consumption. However, does this make every blogger a public intellectual? The short answer is no, it does not. I hardly feel that blogs covering what toilet paper celebrities buy for their homes (or which celebrities don’t use toilet paper) is adding to the enrichment of anyone’s lives.

Yet, blogs can be venues for public intellectuals to get new ideas out in lickety-split timing. There are established public intellectuals that have switched over from journals and publications to screens and URLs. By disseminating the same information that they would publish in the New York Times or in Foreign Policy on the internet does not make their ideas any less “academic”. It actually makes them more accessible, and in the world of public intellectuals, the more people who hear, read, or see you, the more merit badges you earn.

The problem with blogging is the volume. Allow me to compare the plight of public intellectuals with some dry economics. In the case of perfectly competitive markets, one of the criteria is that there is an absence of barriers to entry or exit in the market. With blogging anyone can easily set up a site, and dismantle it within seconds. The problem is that public intellectuals do not seek a perfectly competitive market. There are oligopolies, cartels, and those damned unions that get in the way of everyone joining the club. In this sense the method, in this case blogs, and the purpose of intellectuals to be a part of what Stephen Mack describes as a “class of academics and philosophically oriented writers” is watered down. Internet goers do not have the time to research all potential blogs and so called public intellectuals to know whose information is worth reading, and whose is garbage. Russell Jacoby perfectly states the dilemma that intellectuals run the risk of simply “adding to the cacophony” by utilizing blogs.

Blogging should have a label on the package that says, “WARNING: May cause attention deficit disorder.” Readers can look at blogs, click flashing ads, be redirected to links, and leave the site at random. The more worrisome fact is that as quickly as blogs are produced, they are just as easily forgotten. In this way, it may benefit the public intellectual to have traditionally published works thrown out into the public forum, if for nothing more than a sense of permanency. I can tell you one thing, if Adam Smith had an electronic version of Wealth of Nations online I wouldn’t have gone past the title page before redirecting my attention to something else with bright colors and bold type.

In the blogosphere you don’t need a publisher, an advisor, or a department head. You are free to speak on whatever topic you so choose. Many writers choose pseudonyms to protect their professional lives on the internet, even though freedom of expression was legal last I checked. The problem with unmarked blogs is that people want to know who it is that is trying to reach out to them. It bugs the hell out of me when I find a quote that I think is perfect and the author is simply stated “anonymous”. Yet, when it comes to the public arena the argument for legitimizing a public intellectual is a battle of credentials versus content.

Should we need to know that the person writing about genocide is a professor, or just a socially involved citizen? Certainly a person would feel more inclined to take the word of the Professor with street cred over the person that lives on the street. But does it really matter? If people have good ideas that are digested by the public, it should not matter whether they have the correct job description to be classified a public intellectual. I disagree with Posner’s idea to rank the top 571 public intellectuals, or for Foreign Policy to create a list of the top 100 public intellectuals. Your membership into the club shouldn’t be based on whether you were included in the Who’s Who of the intelligentsia, but on the topics you discuss and their importance to society.

This generation of public intellectuals has grown up seeking out the television interviews and namesake websites that their predecessors shunned. Blogs are a great tool to both send out new information and to get feedback from a larger audience. The problem is that the internet cannot educate the public on the author’s credentials, or political and ideological biases. It is the public in this case that lacks the time and energy to keep up with every individual claiming public intellectual status. It is with this idea that I conclude the public intellectual is not dead; they're merely lost in the static.

Dying to Go to School

Another day, another class, another shooting. This time senseless acts of violence were carried out at Northern Illinois University. A 27 year old graduate student killed five students and himself in a lecture hall. This shocking incident occurs in the wake of the April 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech. As a student, these stories of campus violence lead to one frustrated demand: WHY? These last two shootings did not occur at large inner city universities. They were at relatively isolated universities in college towns. The idea that geography keeps us safe from all things bad is shattered.

As a native of the Washington Metropolitan area I have experienced what it is like to be targeted by a gunman. In 2002 the so called Beltway sniper filled news outlets. 3 people were injured from these attacks, and 10 were killed, including a resident of my neighborhood. He was simply walking out of a Shopper's Food Warehouse and was shot. For nearly a month the entire area lived in fear that every white delivery van housed the sniper. Citizens were informed to walk in zig-zags down the sidewalk so as not to be an easy target. Children were forbidden from going outside.

While universities have responded to the recent shootings, it is hard to justify having first responders to a shooting. While it can prevent massive deaths like the V-Tech shootings, when it comes to guns what's done is done. What are universities to do about the protection of its students? I don't students will join the zig-zag club on campus, and no one will stand for metal detectors at the doors to lecture halls.

The two joining factors at both NIU and V-Tech were that the gunmen had histories of mental health problems. Perhaps a more effective step is to check the mental health of accepted students to university. This is not to alienate those with legitimate problems or to stigmatize mental health, but the safety of students is worth it. I know students who would be nice to others because they did not want to be targeted by them when they "snapped." It's important to protect the rights and lives of students and unless someone has a better idea, the first place to start may be with mental health screenings.

Dane Cook hits a little closer to home than expected.

F is for failing

So called failed states that don't provide their citizens with basic rights and protections are a problem for everyone. No matter what regions of the world they are located in, they disrupt economic activities, create border security issues, refugee problems, and can result in bloody civil war. It was only until these once irrelevant, failed states began facilitating terrorist cells that major powers, like the U.S. paid attention.

Now, it is true that some purely humanitarian missions have taken place in conflict regions, but it is hard for elected officials to justify soldiers dying without just cause. This is exactly what happened in Somalia in 1993. The U.S. mission's P.R. manager was seemingly out to lunch when footage of American soldiers being dragged through the streets was broadcast. In this situation, even the most seasoned campaign managers couldn’t put a positive spin on that.

But is it justifiable to say we don’t want our men and women involved in domestic crisis across the world? The Westphalian principles of sovereignty that have governed the established system for centuries would say if it does not directly concern your nation and its strategic interests than you have no rights to meddle. I say that’s a load of crap. We, the safe, fed, and peaceful bystanders have the responsibility to ensure the protection of those whose safety has been taken from them.

Yes, there are controversies as to who should be the ones entering these conflict zones. Should it be the African Union, the European Union, NATO, single nations, or U.N. peacekeeping missions? To address that issue is to be an international relations student, and let's be honest, not everyone is or wants to put the effort into tackling such grand issues.

I believe adamantly that it is not enough to stand by during humanitarian crisis with the attitude that it concerns them not us. It is deplorable for intergovernmental agencies like the U.N. to hesitate labeling a crisis a genocide simply for the fact that it obligates the organization and its members to act. I think an official policy of "waiting it out" is shameful and embarrassing. Think of it this way, if your safety was not guaranteed and you saw no end in sight to violence, pain, and suffering, who would come save you?

Coming to Terms

The World is flat. Unlike global warming, globalization is one phenomenon whose validity cannot be denied.

"People have accused me of being in favor of globalization. This is equivalent to accusing me of being in favor of the sun rising in the morning."
Clare Short

What are the implications of this buzzword? I like to use personal experience to explain it. I am from the state of Maryland. In case you weren’t sure, it’s that odd sliver next to Washington, D.C. In 2006 I spent a summer in Hong Kong. I met all sorts of expats: Aussies, Brits, Portuguese, Spaniards, Ghanaians, you name it. I once mentioned to a group of friends a crab seasoning from home called Old Bay. A Canadian in the group knew immediately what I was talking about. I would doubt whether someone in North Carolina knew what it was, nevertheless a Canadian in Hong Kong. It turns out the company he worked for back in Canada used to be an Old Bay distributor. Illustrations like this one lead to the conclusion that the geographical, cultural, and economic divides in this world are shrinking. Is globalization a threat or an opportunity? More importantly, how can we thrive in this highly interactive, highly competitive environment? Exposure to globalization’s affects at home, such as the loss of jobs due to outsourcing, popularization of Japanese animation, or tech support in India only lead to a passive of understanding of the forces at change around the world. In today’s world, the only way an individual can truly stay competitive is through foreign travel and exposure to unfamiliar cultures.

The joys of globalisation. One can enjoy a Liverpool-Chelsea match on the Fox Soccer Channel, wearing their preferred club’s scarf- bought off the official team website-while drinking an Irish stout, but never having set foot on English turf. Today we have the technology, the information, and the exposure to foreign cultures that inhibit a greater knowledge of the world around us. However, this idea of cultural globalisation does not provide a full enough understanding of foreign culture. One measurement of cultural globalisation is mass communication such as films, television programming, and print publications. However, what ultimately makes it through the filter can be surprising, and can provide an extremely distorted understanding of the values of others.

Superman in Hong Kong

Take for example the censorship of American produced film in the Chinese market. It was only with China’s negotiations for entry into the World Trade Organization that it allowed twenty American-films to be imported into the country. With government censorship and restrictions on film as a cultural import, it is flawed to say that American culture is portrayed accurately. Authoritarian governments shouldn't be blamed for cultural censorship entirely. The same phenomenon happens in less politically restrictive country, but instead of the government being the arbiter of communication, it is the free-market and consumer demands.

Additionally, those shows, films, and books that are being viewed aren’t always understood for their cultural idiosyncrasies. Jokes and statements made about current events in the country, cultural icons, or country specific attitudes can be lost upon the viewer. More often, the entertainment value comes from the more obvious differences in interpersonal relationships of the characters or in strange and misunderstood behaviours. While in Italy I watched the cult classic "A Night at the Museum" dubbed over in Italian. Aside from not understanding Owen Wilson the entire movie, the jokes that I laughed at were culturally ground, but the rest of the audience laughed at scenes that weren't meant to be amusing. A friend of mine was astounded by how much content in the Chappelle Show went straight over his friends' heads in Holland. They just don't get it. These two examples of passive exposure to cultural globalisation are not substitutes for a global perspective. Spending time abroad is the only way to understand the cultural nuances lost on those who are affected, rather than involved, in what they are exposed to.

If you want to see examples of cultural exchange you can sit at home and watch L'Auberge Espagnole on on-demand with your hot pocket in hand, or you can go to Europe. The European Union’s ERASMUS and ERASMUS Mundus programmes encourage and support university students to study outside of their native country. The programme ensures that the student’s home university recognizes the time spent abroad. This provides the framework for an interconnected higher educational system in those countries. Students can spend three months to one year studying in a foreign city. An added incentive for students is that their tuition fees are not altered for their different location. German political scientist Stefan Wolff predicts a shift in European identity and leadership in this so-called ERASMUS generation.

“Give it 15, 20, 25 years, and Europe will be run by leaders with a completely different socialization from those today.”

Stephen Wolff interview with the International Herald Tribune

One argument I have heard time and time again is that it is simply easier to travel throughout Europe. With states the size of some European country, the geographic differences seem to be in their favour for international travel. The European Union’s facilitation of mobility through the Schengen nations makes it even easier for EU citizens to cross borders. This argument of distance and isolation however, is a weak one. With extremely favorable relations with many countries, U.S. citizens enjoy privileged travel without specified visas. A look into a parallel country is Australia. In every country I have traveled to I have met Aussies-without question. Maybe it’s the fact that they're a country, a continent, and an island, but the Aussies spread across the globe like cicadas. I say if the Aussies can do it, why can’t, and why shouldn’t we?

Not only are students going abroad, but so are universities. Countries like Singapore are wooing American universities to establish campus there to provide their students with the university’s degree. In a mutually beneficial relationship, Singapore attracts top-ranked U.S. schools such as Cornell, MIT, the University of Chicago, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins so its students can essentially receive brand named degrees. The reputation associated with degrees from these schools assumes a high-rigour of education, and can make the students more competitive in the global job market. In return, American universities gain research facilities in the markets and regions that they are studying. This provides their research with a competitive advantage that other universities doing proxy research cannot achieve. The development of a global model of education through collaborations such as those in Singapore will favour students and academics with a global perspective, thus highlighting the need for cultural uprooting to keep up with the change.

Where is the incentive to travel if it is likely that international opportunities will present themselves in the workplace? In a study conducted by the Mercer consulting group, 38% of companies increased the amount of international transfers from headquarters abroad between 2004 and 2006. Global experience and a desire to work abroad are key for today’s workforce. Texas A&M professor S. Kerry Cooper notes that students with prior experience are looked upon favorably by companies today.

“Quite simply, recruiters see students with experience living overseas as more mature and having better communication skills. They are perceived as more desirable employees. They are more competitive in the workplace.”
Professor S. Kerry Cooper, Texas A&M

Although companies seem to be looking more for local managers and talent, it is often difficult to find skilled locals to take over traditionally expatriate jobs. This still leaves many positions open for company nationals to go abroad. Many companies offer career advancement as an incentive to go abroad. PricewaterhouseCoopers, the global accounting and auditing firm has a Life Experience Abroad Programme that sends young promising workers abroad with the promise of advancement in the company.

Then there are the others. That global workforce in emerging markets like China, Brazil, and India who are unapologetically climbing their way up the global ladder. In an Economist article, it is noted that

“Well educated Indians, Chinese, Brazilians or Mexicans-often armed with degrees from foreign universities-are perfect candidates for many European or American firms that want them to gain experience in the head office before they take on greater responsibility in their home markets.”

Those foreign posts and country manager positions that are common in the business world today could be shrinking. As developing countries continue to improve education and foreign markets become more attractive, these jobs could be lost to qualified local managers. This idea glocalizing, like outsourcing, could threaten the job market of the company’s headquarters.

How can the threat be hedged in order to stay ahead of these new competitors? The answer is by continually learning and developing new skills. Traveling abroad and learning different production, managerial, and interpersonal methods can allow employees and companies to acquire best practice methods. Whether it be Japanese supply-chain methods, or Italian ceramic production, there is much to learn through direct contact with foreign businesses and practices.

Globalisation is not a thing to be feared. From the Silk road, to the great explorers, to maritime trading routes, the spread of culture, wealth, and politics is not a new concept. However, this global integration throughout history could not have occurred by sitting in a charting room guessing what was out in the abyss. It was only by traveling and seeing the world that it was finally understood. While technology and communication have changed the rules of the game, the way it must be played still stays the same. Get out. Travel. See the world, and it might make a little more sense.